Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment (Places of Public Worship) Bill 2026

The Hon. CHRIS RATH ( 21:35 :34 ): I speak on behalf of the Opposition in support of the Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment (Places of Public Worship) Bill 2026. After the tragedy that befell Bondi in December last year, it was made clear that this Parliament had a duty to do more to prevent the scourge of antisemitism in our society. It was also made clear that this Parliament had a duty to do more to prevent antisemitic hate speech and hate preachers. The bill represents a crucial element of this Parliament upholding that duty and protecting our State. I am pleased to support it on behalf of the Opposition. The bill empowers councils with three new or expanded powers aimed at empowering them to shut down unlawful places of worship and, in particular, to shut down unlawful hate preachers.

Firstly, the bill enables councils to apply to the Land and Environment Court for orders to cut water and electricity services in instances where places of worship fail to comply with a stop use order. That represents a measured expansion of already existing provisions for backpacker premises and boarding houses. Secondly, the bill increases the maximum penalty notice available for failing to comply with a development control order issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 from $3,000 to $6,000 for individuals and from $6,000 to $12,000 for corporations. Finally, the bill increases the maximum penalty for failing to comply with certain safety orders available under the Local Government Act 1993 from $11,000 to $110,000 for individuals and from $22,000 to $220,000 for corporations.

The measures ensure that local governments have the power to shut down illegal prayer halls, which have come to proliferate communities across Sydney, whilst also ensuring that penalties adequately reflect the serious threats those organisations pose to our State. The bill must not, however, be the only answer this Government has to antisemitism. The Government cannot evade responsibility by passing on the obligation to tackle one of the greatest challenges facing New South Wales to local councils, which are under-equipped and under-resourced. If councils are being given expanded powers, the Government must accompany them with greater resources to ensure that enforcement is possible and effective. The Government must also acknowledge that we will not be able to eliminate antisemitism solely through the closure of unlawful places of worship and prayer halls.

This Parliament and this Government must address the underlying causes of hate speech and division within our State, or else preachers will simply move elsewhere. We cannot continue to play catch-up, solely reacting to radicalisation and hate speech after it has spread around our State. The Government must bring a coordinated strategy to ensure that we are preventing the establishment and promotion of dangerous and hateful ideas, not merely shutting them down when they appear time after time. This Parliament must continue to be unequivocal in its resolve to eradicate antisemitic hate preachers in our society. While the bill is important, it is not the final step. I am pleased to commend the bill to the House.

Ms SUE HIGGINSON ( 21:39 :05 ): The Greens approach the Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment (Places of Public Worship) Bill 2026 with a clear understanding of the responsibility of the Parliament to respond to matters of public safety in a careful and evidence-based manner, particularly where reforms intersect with religious practice, minority communities and the planning system in New South Wales. This legislation has been framed by the Government as addressing unlawful or unauthorised places of worship. However, the material presented to Parliament does not demonstrate a systemic failure of existing enforcement mechanisms under the Local Government Act or the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act framework.

The publicly referenced example of a prayer hall in Bankstown involved the use of existing compliance powers, including the issuing and enforcement of a stop use order under the current law, and there has been no detailed presentation of data indicating that councils are routinely unable to secure compliance, that courts are refusing to make enforcement orders, or that existing penalty settings have proven ineffective as a deterrent. In the absence of such evidence, the escalation of penalties contained in the bill raises concern, specifically of proportionality.

The proposal to double the maximum penalties for failure to comply with a stop use order and to increase certain public safety order penalties by a factor of 10 represents a significant expansion of punitive exposure for individuals and other entities without any accompanying analysis demonstrating why the current settings are insufficient. A penalty of up to $110,000 for an individual is a serious financial consequence that will inevitably fall most heavily on small congregations and community-based organisations, including migrant and minority faith groups who may be operating in leased or adapted premises and who do not have access to substantial legal or compliance resources. In circumstances where the Government has not demonstrated widespread or repeated noncompliance that cannot already be addressed under existing law, such increases appear excessive.

The bill also introduces a mechanism whereby councils may apply to the Land and Environment Court for orders directing utility providers to disconnect services where a stop use order has not been complied with. While a requirement for court involvement provides an important safeguard, the disconnection of electricity or water to premises is a serious regulatory intervention with potentially wideranging consequences, particularly in mixed‑use or residential contexts. It is appropriate that the Parliament scrutinises carefully whether that escalation is genuinely necessary, whether it is likely to be used in a targeted and proportionate manner, and whether less severe enforcement pathways are already available and adequate.

There is a broader context in which this legislation is being advanced. The Government has, on a number of occasions, announced policy positions in response to high-profile events in a manner that precedes the presentation of detailed evidence or structured consultation, and the bill reflects that pattern. The Premier's public statements following the Bondi attack created the impression of an enforcement gap relating specifically to places of worship, yet the legislative material before us does not substantiate that gap through empirical analysis or regulatory review. Law reform that follows tragedy must be grounded in demonstrable need rather than shaped by immediate political messaging.

The timing of the introduction of the bill also warrants comment. The bill was brought forward just days after the NSW Police Force engaged in conduct involving the violent assault of peaceful Muslim worshippers gathered in a public area, an incident that has caused significant distress and concern within affected communities. Introducing legislation that increases regulatory sanctions and enforcement mechanisms in relation to places of worship in that immediate context risks compounding perceptions of targeting and undermining community confidence in public institutions. Regardless of the Government's stated intention that the bill addresses planning compliance rather than religious practice, the symbolic and practical effects cannot be divorced from the lived experience of communities who have recently been subjected to significant excessive police force.

Further concern arises from the foreshadowed reforms requiring councils to consult with the New South Wales Commissioner of Police on community safety matters before approving developments for new or altered places of worship, which are to be implemented through non‑disallowable planning instruments rather than through primary legislation. Embedding police consultation into the development assessment process for religious premises represents a significant shift in the character of planning law in New South Wales, and such a change should be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny rather than effected through regulatory mechanisms that limit the capacity of this House to review or disallow them. Of course the police get involved in planning matters, but that is normally around roads and road safety; it is not normally about religious practice.

The Greens do not dispute that unlawful land use should be addressed and that councils must have appropriate tools to ensure compliance with planning controls. However, the evidence before Parliament does not establish that existing stop use orders, court enforcement pathways and penalty provisions are inadequate in fact or in law. In circumstances where the Government has not demonstrated systemic enforcement failure, the substantial escalation of penalties and the expansion of disconnection powers to essential services cannot be regarded as proportionate or necessary responses. For those reasons, The Greens will not support the bill in its current form. Public safety, planning integrity and respect for religious freedom should never be approached as competing values. We have an obligation to balance competing interests through careful and evidence‑based lawmaking. The bill as drafted does not achieve that balance. It is entirely political and about achieving a political objective. That time has passed, and The Greens will not support the bill.

The Hon. TANIA MIHAILUK ( 21:46 :24 ): I make a brief contribution to debate on the Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment (Places of Public Worship) Bill 2026. I state from the outset that I do not oppose the bill; in fact, I support it. As I understand, this bill has been introduced by the Government as part of its response to the horrific antisemitic terrorist attack at Bondi Beach on 14 December. As a former member for Bankstown, I am acutely aware that many unauthorised places of worship operate outside the scope of the law and without the appropriate planning approvals from local council. That lack of oversight creates an environment where activities can occur unchecked. In some cases, radicalisation is not confined to a building at all. It occurs in plain sight on the street, outside train stations or in local shopping strips, where vulnerable individuals can be targeted without scrutiny or intervention.

It is within this context that the bill seeks to act from a regulatory perspective. The bill amends the Local Government Act 1993 and the environmental planning and assessment framework to address and strengthen the enforcement powers available to local councils in relation to unlawful places of public worship. The bill introduces a mechanism enabling councils to apply to the Land and Environment Court for orders directly allowing utility providers to disconnect water and electricity services where a premises continues to operate in breach of a stop use order. The bill also increases penalty notice amounts for failure to comply with the development control orders under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, raising penalties to $6,000 for individuals and $12,000 for corporations.

I understand that councils will continue to have access to existing court‑based enforcement pathways, including the ability to seek significantly higher penalties in cases of serious or ongoing noncompliance. In addition, the bill amends the Local Government Act to increase penalties for noncompliance with certain public safety orders, with maximum penalties rising to $110,000 for individuals and $220,000 for corporations. Councils also retain the ability to seek higher penalties through the courts, including up to $1 million plus $10,000 per day for continuing offences by individuals and $5 million plus $50,000 per day for continuing offences by corporations. Taken as a whole, these are significant penalties, and I welcome the stronger deterrence that they intend to provide.

While the bill does create a stronger deterrence framework for noncompliance and planning frameworks, I am concerned that the unintended consequence of these reforms may be that hotspots for radicalisation, such as the Al Madina Dawah centre that was at Bankstown, will continue to operate in a more concealed manner and without oversight by authorities. It was reported, of course, that that particular centre has now been permanently shut. If true, it is a good outcome for Bankstown and for the entire New South Wales community.

However, as a former member for Bankstown, my concern is that radical Islam in communities like Bankstown is spread by extremists who have no regard for the law, particularly planning laws. This is a concern I raised in December when contributing to debate on the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 following the Bondi terrorist attack. The failure that led to that atrocity was the longstanding reluctance of authorities and political leaders to confront antisemitic radicalisation directly, consistently and without fear. Two terrorists were radicalised here at home, potentially in Bankstown, and progressed along a pathway of extremist ideology to commit violence against innocent Jewish Australians.

The bill does not address this problem. This is why, at the most recent budget estimates hearing, I asked both the Minister for Education and Early Learning and the Minister for Skills, TAFE and Tertiary Education whether extremists such as Wisam Haddad, who is associated with the Al Madina Dawah Centre, have ever visited a New South Wales public school or TAFE campus to deliver sermons promoting extremist views. I expect a thorough review of school and TAFE visitor logs to ensure students have not been exposed to potentially harmful rhetoric. This core issue is not addressed in the bill. In places like the Al Madina Dawah Centre in Bankstown, the core concern is what is being preached—hatred in the false name of a religion—more so than the absence of a development application to operate an approved place of worship. That is why I have consistently said that, if we are serious about addressing radicalisation from radical Islam, community leadership matters.

The overwhelming majority of Australian Muslims are indeed peaceful, law-abiding citizens who reject terrorism and extremism in all their forms. This is why Islamic organisations and community leaders are best placed to identify early signs of radicalisation. Those institutions already operate within the planning and regulatory framework, with the appropriate development approvals. As a result, the measures in this bill are unlikely to materially assist their efforts to counter radicalisation on the ground. That distinction is important. The bill is directed at unlawful premises and strengthening compliance with planning laws, but the drivers of radicalisation and violent extremism sit beyond that regulatory framework.

In conclusion, I welcome the bill and the stronger enforcement powers it provides to local councils. However, we must be clear that planning enforcement alone will not address the deeper issues of radicalisation and violent extremism. Addressing radical Islam requires a broader and more direct response, and the bill represents only a part of that task.